Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Assessee wins unexplained cash deposits case under section 69A with proven opening balance availability

        Sri Nanjappa Umashanker Versus ITO Ward-4 (2) (1), Bangalore

        Sri Nanjappa Umashanker Versus ITO Ward-4 (2) (1), Bangalore - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Legality of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
        2. Whether the addition of Rs. 16 lakhs as unexplained money under Sec. 69A was justified.
        3. Validity of the sources of cash deposits explained by the appellant.
        4. Evaluation of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)' assumptions regarding the cash held by the appellant.
        5. Adoption of the 'theory of probability' by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
        6. Assessment of the appellant's income in relation to the cash deposits.
        7. Requirement and validity of maintaining a cash book.
        8. Consideration of the cash book maintained by the appellant.
        9. Satisfaction of conditions under Sec. 69A for invoking its provisions.

        Summary:

        1. Legality of the Order:
        The appellant contended that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was opposed to law and facts of the case.

        2. Addition of Rs. 16 Lakhs as Unexplained Money:
        The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the addition of Rs. 16 lakhs as unexplained money under Sec. 69A. The appellant argued that the sources of the cash deposits were duly explained through legitimate sources, including the opening cash balance and income from previous years.

        3. Validity of Sources Explained:
        The appellant provided explanations and documents, including a balance sheet and income and expenditure account, indicating an opening cash balance of Rs. 19,71,244 as of 31-03-2016. The Commissioner, however, disregarded these explanations and treated the cash deposits as unexplained money.

        4. Assumptions Regarding Cash Held:
        The Commissioner assumed that the cash held by the appellant was too distant in time to have remained intact and thus was unexplained. The appellant argued that this assumption was erroneous and based on mere surmise rather than empirical evidence.

        5. Adoption of 'Theory of Probability':
        The Commissioner upheld the additions under Sec. 69A by adopting the 'theory of probability' without refuting actual facts on cogent grounds. The appellant cited various legal precedents to argue that the addition based on probability rather than concrete evidence was unjustified.

        6. Assessment of Income in Relation to Cash Deposits:
        The Commissioner held that the appellant's income was not commensurate to explain the cash deposits. The appellant countered that his income from various sources, including rental and business income, was sufficient to justify the cash deposits.

        7. Requirement and Validity of Maintaining a Cash Book:
        The Commissioner stated that the appellant was not required to maintain a cash book, thus treating the cash book submitted as a 'self-serving document.' The appellant argued that under Sec. 44AA(2), he was required to maintain books of accounts and had duly done so.

        8. Consideration of the Cash Book:
        The Commissioner disregarded the cash book maintained by the appellant, stating that it did not back the transactions in the bank accounts and income tax returns. The appellant contended that the cash book was compiled based on legitimate documents and constituted irrefutable evidence.

        9. Satisfaction of Conditions under Sec. 69A:
        The appellant argued that the conditions for invoking Sec. 69A were not satisfied, as the cash deposits were recorded in the books of accounts. The Commissioner failed to provide any counter-evidence to dispute the appellant's explanations.

        Conclusion:
        The appeal was allowed, and the addition of Rs. 16 lakhs under Sec. 69A was deleted. The Tribunal held that the appellant had satisfactorily explained the source of the cash deposits, and the Commissioner had erred in confirming the additions based on assumptions and the 'theory of probability' without concrete evidence. The Tribunal also emphasized the importance of maintaining proper books of accounts and the validity of the cash book submitted by the appellant.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found